Relda and Shorbe,

I think you need to reconcile the cohesiveness of the State with the level of intervention by the State regarding the locus of control. A strong, effective and democratic state needs a clear ethic and flexible institutions. On the other hand, such a State will have decentralised power and will avoid intervention into personal lives. The people are free to pursue happiness, within reasonable constraints. Its strength does not sit with its ability to impose its will, rather, to some extent codification is incidental, because the ambience is the will of the (self) governed. Ideally, politicians, unions and corporations are moderated. Power is diffuse.

Relda,

Much of what you say about familialism rings true.

A larger model would see families operating within a culture. That culture is embedded in an ecology. The individual is provided values by the family, usually in concord with the society-at-large. Typically, this situation works well for the dominant societal group. Minority groups have a harder time.

In Western society, our culture permits latitudes and diversity, but, a horizontal society also expects engagement and participation by its members. It rejects inclusiveness and non-participation. Perhaps, this is why [tribal] indigenous clans and other inclusive societies run against the grain of democratic society, much to their own disadvantage.

Herein, not all cross-cultures are created equal.

Thus, multiculturalism needs to be segmented for fit, and might serve not the integration of, just any combination of peoples.

If familial and ethnics-based value systems are self-located, and not broadly situated in a democratic society, these groups can appear and may even be alien to the host culture. It will reject them or at least be perplexed about how to manage relationships.

"After I submitted the article on values and what we hold in common, Steve Irwin died. One only needs to look at the intensity and widespread nature of the public response to his life and death to realise that the traditional bushman ideal of the Australian character is alive and well. " -- Kevin D. (first Post)

Interesting, isn't it? Given Oz is one of the most urbanised and technologically advanced countries on then planet. It also amuses me, that Oz and US film producers seem to make an effort to find thirty-year cars for Australian-based movies.

Hi Oliver,

What movies are you watching?

Kevin D

Hello Kevin,

I'm in Hong Kong and have just come back the computer, because I can't find a good movie.

O.

Kevin,

Did you ever see the Australian JAG episodes (My wife loves JAG)? Well, twenty year old mini-minors pop here and there and in one scene if I recall, three minis. [Britsh Leyland had to quit Australia] In the Commodore era, Kingswoods abound, especially, if set on a country town. But even before then, there were FJs went the Kingwoods were new.

Relda,

Any comment on the suggestion of a larger model, as above? Herein, familialism is just one factor. Of course, most societies have a big dose of "family" in the mixiture. Western society seems capable of going beyond [not replacing the family]. The vikings, celts and romans (they had pantheons)seem to have integrated well across families. Albeit, in ancient times patrimonalism was present. In eleventh century Britain (Briton?), village life went beyond the family and peoples were cooperatively and socially engaged. Much more so than with Middle Eastern tribalism and Far Eastern familialism.